Thursday, 22 March 2012

BBC chief Lord Patten of Barnes, Bridgepoint and the Conflicts of Interest

Lord Patten, the current
head of the BBC has direct links to a company heavily involved in private
healthcare.

Lord Patten of Barnes is a member of the
European Advisory Board for a private equity investment company called
Bridgepoint.

The company who also have Alan
Milburn the former Secretary of State for Health under Tony Blair, as chair of
the board, have been involved
in 17 healthcare deals over recent years
listed below. Eight of these companies remain as their current investments,
which include four in the UK at a combined investment worth over £1.1 billion.

One company
acquired by Bridgepoint was residential care company CareUK in a £414 million acquisition in July 2010.
CareUK made the headlines in the same year when it was revealed their chairman
Jonathan Nash had donated £21,000 in November 2009 to run Health Secretary
Andrew Lansley’s personal office.

Another deal saw Tunstall,
a telehealth company with contracts in the NHS, acquired by Charterhouse
Development Company for
£555 million; who have another Lord Patten
as their senior advisor. Four
companies were involved in the transaction, including; Goldman Sachs,
Clifford Chance, KPMG, and LEK, three of which have Lords
in senior positions. Lord Griffiths is a director at Goldman Sachs; Lord
Harris is a senior advisor at KPMG, and Lord Wakeham is an adviser to LEK.

Further transactions for Bridgepoint and a private healthcare company involved
Alliance Medical, who sold the MRI scan company for
£600 million to Dubai International LLC in 2007. The sale was a weighty
profit, following it’s original purchase for £90 million purchase made while Alan Milburn was
working at Bridgepoint.

Further
investments by Bridgepoint into the healthcare sector look likely according to their
website, which states: ‘We believe that there will be excellent growth prospects and
consolidation opportunities for those private sector players that can offer
flexible, efficient and innovative business models in this evolving environment.’

Lord Patten was appointed to the
Lords in 2005, and before being accepted as the head of the BBC was urged
by Labour in March last year, to cut back on his business activities. This however
didn’t happen, as he remains a stakeholder of energy giant EDF, a member of the
advisory board of BP, advisor to telecom business Hutchison Europe, as well as
his advisory role in Bridgepoint. Part of the concern of his appointment to the
BBC was that as a member of the Conservative party his appointment would be a
political placement at the top of the organisation.

Lord Patten of Barnes didn’t vote
on the Health and Social Care bill, but that he was allowed to if he so wanted
to, highlights the democratic hole in the Lords rules, which fails to prevent
voting despite clear conflicts of interest.

Hi Jonathan, as much as I wish that was the same Lord, it is a different one with the same name - there is Lord Patten and this one is Lord Patten of Barnes - http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/100833&showall=yes#divisions -

There are checks and balances to prevent such behaviour in the BBC. There may be some kind of of self-censorship going on or just that the editorial management of the BBC are simply not doing there job properly.

Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, Chris Patten is head of the BBC Trust, which is a completely separate body from the "the BBC" as most people understand it and is also totally unable to exert any kind of editorial control over the BBC's output.

In terms of day-to-day management the people ultimately responsible for deciding what stories get run and what don't are firstly Helen Boaden, Director of News, and her boss, Mark Thompson, the Director General of the whole BBC.

Please at least search "NHS " on the BBC website before printing this. For March alone:

Daily Politics Slot, March 23rd: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17487633Full scale breakdown of the Bill, March 21st: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17457102Report on the opposition to the Bill, March 20th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17452756Health minister interviewed on opposition to Bill, March 20th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17447905Report on Lansley being attacked, march 20th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17445034Report on Labour attempts to overturn bill, march 20th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17447992Report on Lords amendments to bill March 19th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17435159Report on failure of Cumbria pilot of Health Bill March 18th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17398930Mention of Doctor's letter opposing NHS Bill in paper review March 17th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17419698Report on Protestors against NHS bill in Oxford March 16th, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-17403869Report on Doctors opposition to NHS Bill march 16th, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17398446Parliamentary sketch on Libdem negotiations on HSC bill,March 14th, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17370686Report on NHS bill debate & PMQs March 14th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17364652Diane Abbott interviewed on the NHS bill, March 13th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17354481Report on passing of HSC bill March 13th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17351686Report on Royal College of GPS views on NHS bill March 12th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17348616Report on Libdem conference refusal to sign up to NHS Bill March 11th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17332204Report on FOI order on Risk Register, march 9th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17312611Report on Government concessions on NHS Bill March 8th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17302381March 7th, report on NHS workers protest against health Bill http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17289988March 6th Health minister and Labour opposit number interviewed on Sunday politics http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17211527March 5th Report on Information tribunal case on NHS Bill http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17239992March 1st Clegg at odds with party over NHS Bill http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17218403

That, in addition to hours of primetime radio & television news. If you go back into Jan/Feb, articles crop up at about the same rate.

Even if we assume Patten has been trying to silence the BBC, he hasn't been doing a very good job, has he?

No I am not. If you have read the article it exposes his links to private healthcare and finishes off with that he is allowed to vote despite these interests. When readers who have been concerned at the coverage of the BBC protests saw it they made suggestions, which I countered in the comments.

Therefore the focus of all the research has been exposing this flaw in our democracy, which is fair to say not childish.

AS USUAL SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH TOO MANY JOBS FOR ONE MAN,NOTHING NEW,THIS IS WHY THE COUNTRY HAS GONE DOWN,FAR TOO MANY MPs, AND LORDS WHO TROUSER £300 FOR TURNING UP WHY NOT SCRAP THE LOT AND AT THE SAME TIME STOP MPs FROM AMASSING DIRECTORSHIPS ETC.

If the NHS is currently too expensive to fund the way it is and we want it to continue - I'm sure we all do - it's one of many reasons why Great Britain is still Great - then instead of privatising the monster the politics and commentators should be coming up with alternative funding methods instead.

I vaguely remember wondering what the NI rate was when I first started work, and around the same time a politician was asked what the NI rate was and couldn't answer the question - it needs to be more open. I hope it doesn't go the way of the American system but I fear in some aspects it already has with a two tier system staffed by surgeons and doctors who do both private and NHS work.

Like the pensions system it has to be funded and accountable for all who need it.

its not that NHS is currently too expensive is that this lot has cut billions not millions from its budget yet they brag they giving more until the lies come out instead of the truth then it will be sold off if one thought we all paid into this fund and one should ask were is it going not the hospitals jeff3